Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The entertainment industry's latest digital rights management scheme shows that Hollywood studios and electronics manufacturers will do anything to suck more money out of the public.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

09 F9: A Simple Way to Stand Up Against the Latest Assault on Digital Rights

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted May 22, 2007.


The entertainment industry's latest digital rights management scheme shows that Hollywood studios and electronics manufacturers will do anything to suck more money out of the public.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I have a number, and therefore I am a free person. That's the message more than a million protesters across the Internet have been broadcasting throughout the month of May as they publish "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0," the 128-bit number familiarly known as 09 F9. Why would so many people create MySpace accounts using this number, devote a Wikipedia entry to it, post it thousands of times on news-finding site Digg, share pictures of it on photo site Flickr, and emblazon it on T-shirts?

They're doing it to protest kids being threatened with jail by entertainment companies. They're doing it to protest bad art, bad business, and bad uses of good technology. They're doing it because they want to watch Spider-Man 3 on their Linux machines.

In case you don't know, 09 F9 is part of a key that unlocks the encryption codes on HD-DVD and Blu-ray DVDs. Only a handful of DVD players are authorized to play these discs, and if you don't own one of them, you can't watch Spidey in high definition -- even if you purchase the DVD lawfully and aren't doing any copying. For many in the tech community, this encryption scheme, known as the Advanced Access Content System (AACS), felt like a final slap in the face from an entertainment industry whose recording branch sues kids for downloading music and whose movie branch makes crappy sequels that you can't even watch on your good Linux computer (you guessed it -- not authorized).

When a person going by the screen name arnezami managed to uncover and publish the AACS key in February, other people immediately began reposting it. They did it because they're media consumers angry about the AACS and they wanted Hollywood and the world to know that they don't need no stinkin' authorized players. That's when the Motion Picture Association of America and the AACS Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) started sending out the cease and desist letters. Lawyers for the AACS LA argued that the number could be used to circumvent copy protection measures on DVDs and posting it was therefore a violation of the anticircumvention clauses in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They targeted blogs and social networks with cease and desists, even sending notice to Google that the search engine should stop returning results for people searching for the AACS key (as of this writing, Google returns nearly 1.5 million pages containing it).

While some individuals complied with the AACS LA, in many cases community sentiment was so overwhelming that it was impossible to quell the tide of hexadecimal madness. Popular news site Digg tried to take down articles containing the number, and for a while it appeased the AACS LA. But Digg is a social network whose content is determined by millions of people, and as soon as Digg staffers took down one number, it would pop up in hundreds of other places. At last Digg's founder, Kevin Rose, gave up and told the community that if Digg got sued, it'd go down fighting. Many other sites, such as Wikipedia and Wired.com, deliberately published the number in articles, daring the AACS LA to sue them. Sites like MySpace and LiveJournal are also rife with the number -- like Digg, these sites are made up entirely of user content, and it would be practically impossible for administrators to scrub the number out.

The AACS key protests have become so popular because they reach far beyond the usual debates over copyright infringement. This isn't about my right to copy movies -- it's about my right to play movies on whatever machine I want to. The AACS scheme is the perfect planned obsolescence generator. It will absolutely force people to upgrade their existing DVD players because soon they won't be authorized to play new DVDs. Even worse, the AACS scheme allows movie companies to revoke authorized status for players. Already, the AACS LA has revoked the authorized status of the WinDVD media player, so anybody who invested in WinDVD will have to reinvest in a new player -- at least, until that player's authorized status is revoked too.

The AACS, more than any other digital rights management scheme, has revealed that the Hollywood studios have formed a cartel with electronics manufacturers who will do anything to suck more money out of the public. If you want to watch lawfully purchased movies, the only sane thing to do is post the number. Stand up and be counted.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: 09 f9, digital rights

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well, then, I'm done.
Posted by: CriminallySane on May 22, 2007 3:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm done buying movies, pretty much done going to theatrical release movies, and almost, if not completely done buying CDs. Live music I might still go to, from time to time.

Why would I want to legitimize my being treated like a suspect?

Let the movies pile up in the stores, let them play to empty houses, who cares? Most of the stuff is outright crap anyway, why would I want to support it?

When/if things change, I might change my mind. I'll let you know...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shun Hollywood
Posted by: bigbad on May 22, 2007 5:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An alternative sane thing to do is shun the cartel. Only buy entertainment from independents. Game over for the cartel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, but this really takes them down.
Posted by: brotherjonah on May 22, 2007 9:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Disney, in at least two cop shows they co-produce, has compared file sharing and bootleg DVDs to al Qa'eda.

In their children's cartoon The Proud Family file sharing was shown to the kids (this show is aimed at preteens, how low can these creeps go?) as such a menace to society that it could literally destroy the economy.

Entertainment, you say? Poetic license, you pose?

Nay verily, say I. This is brainwashing of a high order. The Disney Cartel has been advertising and boasting that they can not only identify the Sender of an email or other digital transfer, but also every single recipient of such file transfers.

Perhaps they could do the patriotic thing and help that poor old Mr Bush locate those missing e-mails that Congress has requested but he and his expert staff can't seem to find? Of course, as he says, they wouldn't be relevant to the investigation. Of course.

And everybody knows he would never lie to us.

But there's a lot of heavy money involved and it seems to go way beyond the "entertainment" industry.

It's acknowledged fact everywhere outside the Disney Cartel that the reason the studios aren't making money is they are producing purest CRAP. Beethoven had a hit song (a Fifth of Beethoven) 150 years after his death.

Bach had a hit song (Lover's Concerto) 250 years after his death.

Some unknown Irish bard had a hit song (Morning has Broken) 2,000 years after his death.

King Solomon had a hit song (Turn, turn turn) 3000 years after his death.

But for a set of realistic numbers, Snoop Dogg, Britney Speares,, Good God it makes my head hurt to even try to think of current pop "idols".... nobody is going to be playing their music 20 years from now, unless it's on one of those DJ things they do about 2:30 A M , "we're reaching into the vault to bring you another Forgotten Oldie.... see if any of you remember this one...." and 99.999 % of all this expensive music they're so worried about protecting now (or say they are) will be be fragments of broken CDs in a landfill somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hey grandpa Posted by: Erik1968
» RE: Disney... Posted by: bob t
Bring them down
Posted by: g on May 23, 2007 12:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with previous posters. Spend money only on independent movies and music. Mostly, it's much better quality anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sticking it to the Man
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 23, 2007 3:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't watch movies, but I enjoy watching these greedy schemers get the bad publicity they deserve.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Say No
Posted by: socialpsych on May 23, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As some of the previous posters astutely observe, the best response to this kind of technocratic Stalinism is to refuse to play at all. I would--and do--go one step further, though: reject the whole idea of "entertainment" as defined by the technocrats. Screw their trashy contrived techno-experiences. I'll take a pleasant walk, listening to the songs of spring birds, a chat with neighbors, a nice vegan meal with friends, or a good book any day of the week over a frigging movie or music created in corporate executive suites by unscrupulous scumbags who I don't know and probably wouldn't even want to know. Just say no to "entertainment."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just Say No Posted by: metavurt
» Sorry . . . Posted by: socialpsych
Oh, please...
Posted by: Erik1968 on May 23, 2007 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, let's only support independents! Like who, exactly? Lion's Gate? Mirimax? Will we all be boycotting the new Michael Moore film?

Can we focus on reality? I like Hollywood movies. I like blockbusters AND the "tiny independents" that are distributed by the big Hollywood studios to your "independent" art theaters. I like watching DVDs. I have no problem buying them. But I DO mind when Hollywood starts messing with my computer, and telling me where I can and can't watch their films! It's outrageous!

As soon as I see the RIAA go after Blockbuster for selling previously viewed DVDs, I'll start worrying about "pirates" giving them away for free.

Isn't it weird? Every college campus sells used textbooks, and every college campus claims to be cracking down on file sharing. Why don't they close their own libraries? It's RAMPANT book-sharing!

Why is it wrong to download a movie for free, but it's OK for me to buy it for $10 used at Blockbuster or on Amazon? Either way it's money out of the Hollywood studios pockets, right? But if I download it, nobody makes a profit. How is that worse?

Americans have the right of Fair Use. We must demand that our lawmakers enforce it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, please... Posted by: CriminallySane
Didn't Their Mom Read To Them ?
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once upon a time there lived an old woman who had a number of hens, ducks, and geese. She used to send her little daughter to the meadow every day to take care of the ducks and geese.

But she had one goose that she never allowed with the others. This one had a little house and yard of its own. It was such a wonderful goose that the old woman was afraid of losing it.

Each day this goose laid a large golden egg. The woman could hardly wait for the new day to come, she was so eager to get the golden egg.

At last she said to herself, "I will kill the goose and get the gold all at once."

But when she had killed the goose she found that it was just like all the other geese.

In her haste to become rich, she had become poor.

Moral: Greed destroys the source of good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3 carats a day
Posted by: lamar on May 23, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood isn't making enough money to stay afloat, as anybody can see by watching all the red carpet awards shows. They need government intervention, like the DMCA, to keep the industry alive and clad in Vera Wang. Personally, I can't imagine Hollywood-types surviving on less than 3 carats a day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've actually received one of those letters telling me to stop downloading movies
Posted by: ateo on May 23, 2007 8:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I consider it a badge of honor to finally receive one after so many years of partaking of digital media.

I've had some mixed reactions to my argument but it simply goes that I wouldn't buy the things I download anyway so in reality nothing is lost (cost of a digital copy of a song or movie distributed by individuals = 0).

I've never bought a DVD and if I couldn't download the few movies I have downloaded on the web guess what? I wouldn't buy them on DVD - I just wouldn't watch them. I'd just be exposed to a much, much smaller amount of media and still be listening to the same music I was listening to 10 years ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blockbuster Pays MORE for the Right to Resell
Posted by: MLO on May 24, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Videos, DVDs, certain books, journals, etc. have another price list that libraries and certain lending institutions have to pay in order to include them in their collections. It is often much, much more than you have paid for your copy. (I used to be a librarian.)

Blockbuster pays what is known as a licensing fee that includes rental distribution and resell rights. These fees are in addition to the cover price.

One of the reasons that libraries are unable to use donated video and recordings is because of these fee structures. And libraries have been sued. It is a major problem in trying to protect the commons.

Intellectual Property Lawyers are out of hand. They need to be reined in. I don't remember where I read it, but, there was a story that showed that the MAJORITY of frivolous lawsuits (eventually thrown out for not having merit) were patent or copyright infringement cases between businesses. This is not something the government / corporations want you to know.

The truth is, this will backfire just like every other copy-protection scheme has backfired. Remember it took a number of decades for the law surrounding the right to reproduce on cassette tape for personal / close personal friend use to occur. They finally sued the wrong person - someone who didn't look like they had political power who really did. Eventually they will overdo this as well.

Pax,

MLO

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]